Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Anisotropic Radio-Wave Scattering and the Interpretation of Solar Radio Emission Observations

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that observed Type III solar radio burst sizes, decay times, and directivity are dominated by propagation through anisotropic coronal density fluctuations, and that matching observations near 30 MHz requires an…

desk verdict A solid, honest modeling paper whose main quantitative claim (alpha ~ 0.3 near 30 MHz) is a single-frequency fit under a fixed radial profile, while the qualitative case against isotropic scattering is robust. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00340 v2 pith:DWCYU7T6 submitted 2019-09-01 astro-ph.SR physics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph

Eduard P. Kontar , Xingyao Chen , Nicolina Chrysaphi , Natasha L.S. Jeffrey , A. Gordon Emslie , Vratislav Krupar , Milan Maksimovic , Mykola Gordovskyy
show 1 more author
Philippa K. Browning
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph
keywords solarradioburstsTypeIIIradio-wavescatteringanisotropicdensityfluctuationsFokker-PlancktransportMonteCarloraytracingcoronalturbulencesourcesizeanddecaytime
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that radio-wave propagation, not the intrinsic emitter, determines what we see when we image solar Type III radio bursts. It develops a full three-dimensional stochastic treatment of scattering in a corona whose density fluctuations are anisotropic, then compares Monte Carlo simulations with decades of source-size and decay-time observations. The central result is that isotropic scattering cannot reproduce the observed sizes and decay times simultaneously at 30 MHz; instead the coronal density fluctuations must be predominantly perpendicular to the radial direction, with anisotropy factor about 0.3 and fluctuation level about 0.8. If correct, this turns solar radio imaging into a tool for measuring coronal turbulence along the Sun-Earth path, and it changes how intrinsic source sizes must be extracted from observed source maps.

What carries the argument

The central object is the wave-vector diffusion tensor for radio waves scattering off an axially symmetric spectrum of electron-density fluctuations, with the spectrum written as a function of a combination of perpendicular and parallel wavenumbers and with the anisotropy parameter being the ratio of perpendicular to parallel correlation lengths; the inferred value near 0.3 means the scattering is predominantly perpendicular to the radial direction. The paper converts the Fokker-Planck equation for the photon number density into equivalent Langevin equations for wavevector and position, including an Ito drift term that conserves the wavevector magnitude during elastic scattering, and integrates these Monte Carlo ray-tracing equations in coordinates rotated so the local radial direction is the symmetry axis. This machinery is what lets the authors combine multiple small-scale scattering, large-scale refraction, and free-free absorption in one simulation and thereby predict source sizes, time profiles, centroid shifts, and directivity.

What would settle it

Observe Type III bursts across a range of heliocentric longitudes at 10-100 MHz. The anisotropic model predicts that the radial source width shrinks toward the limb while the tangential width stays near 1-1.2 solar radii, whereas isotropic scattering predicts a much weaker angular dependence, so high-cadence limb imaging would separate the two. A second decisive observation would be in-situ spacecraft measurements of density-fluctuation inner and outer scales in the 0.1-1 AU region showing that the assumed radial scalings are wrong, which would undercut the inferred fluctuation level and anisotropy factor.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own framing, the discovery is that the apparent properties of Type III bursts---source sizes near 1.15 solar radii at 35 MHz, decay times near 0.6 seconds at 30 MHz, and a directivity half-width-half-maximum near 40 degrees---are produced by the combined action of small-scale anisotropic scattering and large-scale refraction. The simulations show that photons are quickly isotropized close to the emission layer, but refraction later focuses them into a non-isotropic pattern, so efficient isotropization does not imply isotropic emission. A systematic comparison with observations between roughly 0.05 and 500 MHz yields fluctuation level approximately 0.8 and anisotropy factor approximately 0.3 near 30 MHz, where the anisotropy describes density fluctuations whose scattering is predominantly perpendicular to the radial direction. Under these parameters, both the observed source-size dependence and the decay-time dependence are accounted for, which an isotropic model cannot do.

Load-bearing premise

The inference stands on the adopted radial profile of the density-fluctuation spectrum: a fixed inner scale proportional to heliocentric distance, an empirical outer scale that grows as a power of radius, and a constant fluctuation level; if the real corona's turbulence departs from these radial scalings, the inferred fluctuation level and anisotropy factor, and even the conclusion that anisotropy is required, could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Observed Type III source sizes near 30 MHz are dominated by scattering: after subtracting the roughly 1.1 solar-radius scattering width in quadrature, intrinsic sources are much smaller, so imaging at these frequencies directly probes propagation rather than the emitting region.
  • Isotropic scattering models are ruled out for this regime: a fluctuation level that reproduces the observed source sizes produces decay times that are too long, while a level that matches decay times produces sources that are too small.
  • The inferred parameters of fluctuation level about 0.8 and anisotropy factor about 0.3 give a single consistent account of both source size and decay time near 30 MHz, implying the corona is a strongly anisotropic scattering medium.
  • Emission directivity near 30 MHz is set by refraction after scattering, with a half-width-half-maximum near 40 degrees, so efficient isotropization near the source does not imply an isotropic observed pattern.
  • Free-free absorption materially shapes time profiles at frequencies above roughly 30-50 MHz, and its effect is amplified when scattering traps photons near the source.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An extension implied by this result is that radio source imaging could become a remote-sensing diagnostic of the anisotropy of solar-wind turbulence along the whole Sun-Earth path, complementing in-situ spacecraft measurements.
  • The same transport formalism could be generalized to magnetic-field-aligned anisotropy rather than simply radial alignment, so that multi-frequency imaging of bursts at different solar longitudes might map the three-dimensional orientation of coronal density structures.
  • A testable consequence not pursued in the paper is that the apparent source elongation and centroid shift should depend on the background magnetic-field direction; comparing active-region and quiet-Sun bursts would separate geometric alignment from turbulence anisotropy.
  • Because the equations apply to any plasma-emission burst, the inferred scattering kernel could be used to reinterpret older Type I, II, and IV source-size and drift measurements that were previously analyzed with isotropic-scattering assumptions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a three-dimensional stochastic description of radio-wave propagation in a corona with anisotropic electron-density fluctuations, based on a Fokker-Planck equation and its equivalent Langevin representation. The authors implement this model in Monte Carlo ray-tracing simulations that include refraction, anisotropic scattering, and free-free absorption, and compare the simulated source sizes, source positions, decay times, and directivity with observations of Type III solar radio bursts. The central claim is that isotropic scattering cannot simultaneously reproduce the observed source size and decay time near 30 MHz, and that predominantly perpendicular density fluctuations with an anisotropy factor alpha ~ 0.3 are required. A secondary claim is that the resulting directivity has a HWHM of about 40 degrees near 30 MHz, determined by the combination of scattering and large-scale refraction.

Significance. If the inferred anisotropy is correct, it is an important constraint on coronal turbulence and would strengthen the view that radio-wave propagation, not the intrinsic source, controls the observed source sizes, positions, and time profiles of solar radio bursts. The Fokker-Planck/Langevin formalism for anisotropic scattering, including the Ito drift term that conserves |k|, is a valuable extension of earlier isotropic treatments; Eq. (36) explicitly verifies the diffusion-tensor square-root construction. The qualitative conclusion that isotropic scattering cannot fit both source size and decay time is well supported by the simulations in Section 4.2 and by Figure 11. The directivity prediction is a non-trivial, falsifiable model output that goes beyond simply fitting the two observables. However, the quantitative value alpha ~ 0.3 is obtained by tuning two parameters to two observables at essentially one frequency, under an adopted radial profile for the density-fluctuation spectrum, so the strength of the central claim currently exceeds what the evidence supports.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2, Eq. (49)] The values epsilon = 0.8 and alpha = 0.3 are obtained by tuning two parameters to match two observables at a single frequency: epsilon is chosen so that the source size is about 19 arcmin, and alpha is chosen so that the decay time is about 0.6 s. Because the scattering rate depends on the product qbar * epsilon^2(r) and Eq. (49) fixes the radial profile through l_i(r) = (r/R_sun) km, l_0(r) = 0.25 R_sun (R/R_sun)^0.82, and constant epsilon, a different but plausible choice of l_0(r) or a radially varying epsilon(r) changes the relative weighting of scattering along and across the line of sight and can partially or fully compensate for the inferred anisotropy. The paper itself notes in Section 4.1 that epsilon cannot be determined without knowledge of l_0(r), and in Section 6 that the adopted l_0(r) may not be valid near 30 MHz. The specific value alpha ~ 0.3 is therefore not uniquely determined by the present comparison, and the abstract's wording that anisotropic fluctuations are 'required' is stronger than the evidence establishes.
  2. [Section 5, Figure 11] The multi-frequency comparison is not carried out for the anisotropic model. Figure 11 shows only isotropic scattering at 0.1-1 MHz, and no simulation with alpha = 0.3 is presented over the frequency range of the observed scalings FWHM ~ f^{-0.98} and tau ~ f^{-0.97} in Eqs. (50) and (51). Since those scalings constrain the radial variation of scattering rather than only its value at 30 MHz, the statement in the Introduction that observations 'over a broad range of frequencies' require anisotropic scattering is not demonstrated by the results shown. Section 6 correctly acknowledges that additional simulations are required for the 0.1-1 MHz range, and this limitation should be reflected in the abstract and conclusions.
  3. [Section 4.2 and Section 6] The agreement for epsilon and alpha is a fit, not an independent prediction. Section 4.2 explicitly chooses epsilon to reproduce the observed 19 arcmin source size and alpha to reproduce the observed 0.6 s decay time, so those two agreements are not tests of the model. The claim in the Abstract and Section 6 that comparison of simulations with observations 'shows that predominantly perpendicular density fluctuations ... are required' should be rephrased to state that the simulations are consistent with the observations only when alpha ~ 0.3 is assumed, and that a degeneracy with the radial profile of the scattering coefficient remains unresolved. A sensitivity study exploring how alpha trades against alternative l_0(r) and epsilon(r) profiles would substantially strengthen the central inference.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction and Abstract] The Introduction states that 'an anisotropy factor of around 3-4' is required, while the Abstract and Section 4.2 report alpha ~ 0.3. If these are meant to be reciprocal quantities (e.g., h_parallel/h_perp versus h_perp/h_parallel), this should be stated explicitly; as written, the two values contradict each other and will confuse readers.
  2. [Section 4.2] The sentence 'This difference is smaller for the stronger anisotropy case presented in Figure 3' appears to contain a figure-reference error, because Figure 3 corresponds to alpha = 0.5 and Figure 4 corresponds to the stronger anisotropy alpha = 0.3.
  3. [Eq. (14)] In Eq. (14), the second factor in the integrand is written as A^{-1}_{i alpha} A^{-1}_{i beta}, which has a repeated index i on both factors; based on Eq. (15), this should likely be A^{-1}_{i alpha} A^{-1}_{j beta}.
  4. [Section 4.2, Figures 5 and 6] The figure captions do not fully explain the distinction between the black symbols (2D Gaussian fit) and the blue symbols (Eq. (46) applied to second moments), and the axis label 'Size [R_sun]' is inconsistent with the text's use of arcminutes; the text should state which quantity is displayed in which unit.
  5. [Section 5, Eqs. (50)-(51)] The reported uncertainties on the fitted power-law normalizations and exponents, e.g., (11.8 +/- 0.06) and f^{-0.98 +/- 0.05}, appear much smaller than the scatter in the combined data sets shown in Figure 10; a brief note on how the weighted fit was performed, and whether the uncertainties are purely statistical, would prevent misinterpretation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The alpha ≈ 0.3 anisotropy conclusion is a fitted parameter at a single frequency, not an independent prediction; the directivity output provides partial independent content.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2 (Simulation results for a single frequency); abstract and Section 6]
    "Using the assumptions presented in the previous section, we can choose ǫ so that the characteristic size of the radio source is about 19′ ... Consequently ... the results with anisotropy factor α = 0.3 give a characteristic decay time ∼ 0.6 s, exactly as observed. ... we find that a density fluctuation level of ǫ ≃ 0.8 and an anisotropy parameter of α = 0.3 are the parameters that best explain recent LOFAR observations by Kontar et al. (2017)."

    At the single 30 MHz frequency used for the anisotropy inference, the model has two free parameters, epsilon and alpha, which directly control the two quantities used as evidence: source size and decay time. The paper explicitly selects epsilon = 0.8 to reproduce the observed ~19 arcmin size and selects alpha = 0.3 to reproduce the ~0.6 s decay time. The subsequent statement that 'predominantly perpendicular density fluctuations are required, with an anisotropy factor ~0.3' is therefore a restatement of a fitted input rather than an output of an overdetermined comparison. The match is forced by construction under the fixed radial scattering profile of Eq. (49).

full rationale

The paper builds a genuine Fokker-Planck/Langevin propagation model for anisotropic scattering, and parts of the analysis are self-contained: the anisotropic diffusion tensor is derived from the assumed spheroidal spectrum, the Itô-drift-corrected Langevin equations are formulated, and the directivity pattern (HWHM about 40 degrees) is an output not used to tune parameters. However, the central astrophysical claim, that the corona requires predominantly perpendicular density fluctuations with alpha ≈ 0.3 at about 30 MHz, is obtained by manually adjusting epsilon to match the observed source size and alpha to match the observed decay time. Section 4.2 says 'we can choose ǫ so that the characteristic size ... is about 19′' and that alpha = 0.3 gives a decay time 'exactly as observed.' This is a two-parameter fit to two data points under a fixed radial profile for the density fluctuation model of Eq. (49), so the agreement is not an independent test of anisotropy. The paper's own caveats reinforce this: Section 4.1 notes that epsilon cannot be determined without the assumed outer-scale model l0(r), and Section 6 states that 'it is possible that the model l0(r) is not valid at these frequencies.' Thus a different radial scaling or a radially varying epsilon could trade against alpha, making the inferred anisotropy non-unique. The non-fitted directivity result and the multi-frequency isotropic comparison in Figure 11 give the paper partial independent content, but the headline alpha ≈ 0.3 inference itself reduces to a fitted parameter value.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The inference depends on several adopted empirical inputs: the power-law fluctuation spectrum with inner and outer scales, the constant-turbulence radial profile, the spherically symmetric density model, and the point-source assumption. The two parameters epsilon and alpha are fitted to the 30 MHz source size and decay time, so the agreement with those observations is not an independent test. The directivity prediction is the main non-fitted output.

free parameters (4)
  • epsilon (density fluctuation level) = 0.8 for the adopted outer scale model
    Chosen in Section 4.2 so the simulated FWHM source size is about 19 arcmin at f_pe = 32 MHz, matching observations.
  • alpha (anisotropy parameter) = 0.3
    Chosen in Section 4.2 so the simulated decay time is about 0.6 s at f_pe = 32 MHz, matching observations.
  • outer scale l0(r) = 0.25 R_sun (R/Rsun)^0.82
    Adopted from Wohlmuth et al. (2001) through Eq (49); not fitted here, but it sets the scattering rate and therefore the required epsilon.
  • inner scale li(r) = r/Rsun km
    Adopted from Manoharan et al. (1987) and Coles and Harmon (1989) through Eq (49); it controls qbar and the scattering rate.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Geometric optics is valid, i.e. dlambda/dr much less than 1 (Eq 1).
    Used in Section 2 to justify the Fokker-Planck treatment; neglects diffraction.
  • domain assumption Density fluctuations are quasi-static and scattering is elastic, conserving the wavevector magnitude |k|.
    Stated in Section 2; underlies the diffusion tensor form.
  • domain assumption The plasma is unmagnetized and the background corona is spherically symmetric.
    Stated in Section 2 and Section 4.1; limits the model and defines the radial anisotropy axis.
  • domain assumption Density fluctuations are axially symmetric about the local radial direction (Eq 11 and Section 4.1).
    Determines the form of the anisotropic diffusion tensor and the interpretation of alpha.
  • domain assumption The coronal density follows the fitted Parker model of Eq (43).
    Power-law fit to the Parker/Mann et al. model used in all ray tracing.
  • domain assumption Density fluctuation spectrum is an inverse power law with inner and outer scales and constant epsilon (Eq C11 and Eq 49).
    Adopted from prior solar wind work; sets the scattering frequency profile.
  • domain assumption Initial source is point-like with isotropic wavevector distribution at omega = 1.1 omega_pe(Rs).
    Used in Section 4.1; if intrinsic sources are extended, the scattering inference changes.
  • domain assumption Observed Type III sizes and decay times are dominated by propagation, not intrinsic source properties.
    Assumed in Sections 1 and 6 based on previous small intrinsic size estimates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anisotropic Radio-Wave Scattering and the Interpretation of Solar Radio Emission Observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DWCYU7T6

@misc{pith2026190900340,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anisotropic Radio-Wave Scattering and the Interpretation of Solar Radio Emission Observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DWCYU7T6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00340}
}
abstract

The observed properties (i.e., source size, source position, time duration, decay time) of solar radio emission produced through plasma processes near the local plasma frequency, and hence the interpretation of solar radio bursts, are strongly influenced by propagation effects in the inhomogeneous turbulent solar corona. In this work, a 3D stochastic description of the propagation process is presented, based on the Fokker-Planck and Langevin equations of radio-wave transport in a medium containing anisotropic electron density fluctuations. Using a numerical treatment based on this model, we investigate the characteristic source sizes and burst decay times for Type III solar radio bursts. Comparison of the simulations with the observations of solar radio bursts shows that predominantly perpendicular density fluctuations in the solar corona are required, with an anisotropy factor $\sim 0.3$ for sources observed at around 30~MHz. The simulations also demonstrate that the photons are isotropized near the region of primary emission, but the waves are then focused by large-scale refraction, leading to plasma radio emission directivity that is characterized by a half-width-half-maximum of about 40~degrees near 30~MHz. The results are applicable to various solar radio bursts produced via plasma emission.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00340 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Cartoon showing the Sun-centered cartesian coordinate system (x, y, z), where the z-axis is directed towards the observer. The initial location of a point source of radio emission is given by the radial coordinate Rs and the polar angle θs; the azimuth angle in the plane of the sky is not relevant to our study. The photons scatter until they cross a sphere at a distance large enough that scattering is no longer impo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Coordinate systems (x, y, z) and (x ′ , y′ , z′ ) with the Sun centre in the origin, where z-axis is directed to an observer and the z ′ -axis is parallel to r, and the y ′ -axis is tangent to the circle created by the intersection of the plane formed by the z and z ′ axes and a spherical surface of radius r. In all simulations, the initial radio source was modeled as a point source with an isotropic distribution of… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Simulations for a point source located at RS = 1.75R⊙ (fpe = 32 MHz), and using ǫ = 0.8, α = 0.5. Left: Time profile of the observed photons: blue with absorption, red without absorption, dashed line indicates the location of the time￾profile maximum; Center: Observed radio image in Sun-centered coordinates. The orange circle denotes the Sun, the dashed line denotes the radius where the plasma frequency is 32 MHz, a… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simulation results as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FWHM sizes and decay time (HWHM) with ǫ = 0.2 as a function of anisotropy α. The black symbols are from fitting the simulation data with a 2D Gaussian function to determine the size and centroid position, the blue sizes are using Equations (46). One standard deviation …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Radio images for a point source located at RS = 1.75R⊙ (fpe = 32 MHz), and for three different source locations θs = 0o , 10o , 30o from the disk center. All images are for anisotropic turbulence with anisotropy paramater α = 0.3 and a level of turbulence ǫ = 0.8. The …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: Shift of the centroid position ¯x as a function of the source heliocentric angle θs. The shifts are calculated for anisotropic scattering with α = 0.3 and turbulence level ǫ = 0.8 as in Figures 7. Center: FWHM X-size given by Equation (46); right: FWHM Y-size giv…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Top: Source sizes (FWHM; degrees) of type III solar radio observations versus frequency f (MHz). A combination of observations is plotted as indicated by the legend, and a weighted linear fit was applied to the data. The dashed line show the fit given by Equation (50)…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FWHM size (left) and decay time (HWHM) (right) calculated at various frequencies for isotropic scattering and for disk centre source (FWHMx=FWHMy) for frequencies 0.1 − 1 MHz. The red dashed line indicates the best fit to the observations from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figure…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The Study of Quasi-Periodic Pulsations in Solar and Stellar Flares with SKA

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

    SKA’s radio imaging spectroscopy and polarisation will enable decisive tests of QPP mechanisms in solar and stellar flares, including weak events and solar–stellar comparisons.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    '9jT=W1rIP!

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    2019

  2. [2]

    P., Bazelian , L

    Abranin , E. P., Bazelian , L. L., Goncharov , N. I., et al. 1976, , 19, 602

    1976

  3. [3]

    1978, , 57, 229, 10.1007/BF00152056

    ---. 1978, , 57, 229, 10.1007/BF00152056

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00152056 1978

  4. [4]

    Afanasiev , A. N. 2009, Annales Geophysicae, 27, 3933, 10.5194/angeo-27-3933-2009

    doi:10.5194/angeo-27-3933-2009 2009

  5. [5]

    2018, PhD thesis, University of Glasgow

    Alcock , B. 2018, PhD thesis, University of Glasgow. http://theses.gla.ac.uk/9013/

    2018

  6. [6]

    K., Malitson , H

    Alexander , J. K., Malitson , H. H., & Stone , R. G. 1969, , 8, 388, 10.1007/BF00155385

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00155385 1969

  7. [7]

    Alexandrova , O., Chen , C. H. K., Sorriso-Valvo , L., Horbury , T. S., & Bale , S. D. 2013, , 178, 101, 10.1007/s11214-013-0004-8

    doi:10.1007/s11214-013-0004-8 2013

  8. [8]

    1976, , 46, 483, 10.1007/BF00149873

    Alvarez , H. 1976, , 46, 483, 10.1007/BF00149873

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00149873 1976

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    Alvarez , H., & Haddock , F. T. 1973, , 30, 175, 10.1007/BF00156186

    1973 doi

  2. [10]

    1999, , 351, 1165

    Arzner , K., & Magun , A. 1999, , 351, 1165

    1999

  3. [11]

    1972, , 19, 343

    Aubier , M., & Boischot , A. 1972, , 19, 343

    1972

  4. [12]

    H., & Achong , A

    Barrow , C. H., & Achong , A. 1975, , 45, 459, 10.1007/BF00158462

    1975 doi

  5. [13]

    H., Emslie , A

    Bian , N. H., Emslie , A. G., & Kontar , E. P. 2019, , 873, 33, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0411

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    2008, , 489, 419, 10.1051/0004-6361:200809777

    Bonnin , X., Hoang , S., & Maksimovic , M. 2008, , 489, 419, 10.1051/0004-6361:200809777

    2008 doi

  7. [15]

    1970, , 6, 406

    Bougeret , J.-L., Caroubalos , C., Mercier , C., & Pick , M. 1970, , 6, 406

    1970

  8. [16]

    L., & Steinberg , J

    Bougeret , J. L., & Steinberg , J. L. 1977, , 61, 777

    1977

  9. [17]

    M., Harvey , C

    Celnikier , L. M., Harvey , C. C., Jegou , R., Moricet , P., & Kemp , M. 1983, , 126, 293

    1983

  10. [18]

    1952, , 112, 475, 10.1093/mnras/112.5.475

    Chandrasekhar , S. 1952, , 112, 475, 10.1093/mnras/112.5.475

    1952 doi

  11. [19]

    S.-L., & Shawhan , S

    Chen , H. S.-L., & Shawhan , S. D. 1978, , 57, 205, 10.1007/BF00152055

    1978 doi

  12. [20]

    P., Holman , G

    Chrysaphi , N., Kontar , E. P., Holman , G. D., & Temmer , M. 2018, , 868, 79, 10.3847/1538-4357/aae9e5

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    A., & Harmon , J

    Coles , W. A., & Harmon , J. K. 1989, , 337, 1023, 10.1086/167173

    1989 doi

  14. [22]

    A., & Blesing , R

    Dennison , P. A., & Blesing , R. G. 1972, Proceedings of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 2, 86, 10.1017/S1323358000012959

    1972 doi

  15. [23]

    E., Hall , P

    Dewdney , P. E., Hall , P. J., Schilizzi , R. T., & Lazio , T. J. L. W. 2009, IEEE Proceedings, 97, 1482, 10.1109/JPROC.2009.2021005

    2009

  16. [24]

    A., & Suzuki , S

    Dulk , G. A., & Suzuki , S. 1980, , 88, 203

    1980

  17. [25]

    1972, , 16, 1

    Elgaroy , O., & Lyngstad , E. 1972, , 16, 1

    1972

  18. [26]

    G., Fainberg , J., & Stone , R

    Evans , L. G., Fainberg , J., & Stone , R. G. 1973, , 31, 501, 10.1007/BF00152825

    1973 doi

  19. [27]

    Fokker , A. D. 1965, , 18, 111

    1965

  20. [28]

    V., & Dubois , D

    Goldman , M. V., & Dubois , D. F. 1982, Physics of Fluids, 25, 1062, 10.1063/1.863839

    1982 doi

  21. [29]

    2019, , 873, 48, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab03d8

    Gordovskyy , M., Kontar , E., Browning , P., & Kuznetsov , A. 2019, , 873, 48, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab03d8

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    1963, Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, 25, 397, 10.1016/0021-9169(63)90173-9

    Haselgrove , J. 1963, Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, 25, 397, 10.1016/0021-9169(63)90173-9

    1963 doi

  23. [31]

    Hollweg , J. V. 1968, , 73, 972, 10.1086/110756

    1968 doi

  24. [32]

    1970, , 75, 3715, 10.1029/JA075i019p03715

    ---. 1970, , 75, 3715, 10.1029/JA075i019p03715

    1970 doi

  25. [33]

    1978, Wave propagation and scattering in random media

    Ishimaru , A. 1978, Wave propagation and scattering in random media. Volume 1 - Single scattering and transport theory , 10.1016/B978-0-12-374701-3.X5001-7

    1978 doi

  26. [34]

    F., & Shvets , V

    Ivanov , M. F., & Shvets , V. F. 1978, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, 238, 1324

    1978

  27. [35]

    Jeffrey , N. L. S., & Kontar , E. P. 2011, , 536, A93, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117987

    2011 doi

  28. [36]

    Jeffrey , N. L. S., Kontar , E. P., Bian , N. H., & Emslie , A. G. 2014, , 787, 86, 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/86

    2014 doi

  29. [37]

    Kontar , E. P. 2001, , 202, 131, 10.1023/A:1011894830942

    2001 doi

  30. [38]

    P., & Jeffrey , N

    Kontar , E. P., & Jeffrey , N. L. S. 2010, , 513, L2+, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014066

    2010 doi

  31. [39]

    P., Yu , S., Kuznetsov , A

    Kontar , E. P., Yu , S., Kuznetsov , A. A., et al. 2017, Nature Communications, 8, 1515, 10.1038/s41467-017-01307-8

    2017 doi

  32. [40]

    2014, , 289, 4633, 10.1007/s11207-014-0601-z

    Krupar , V., Maksimovic , M., Santolik , O., Cecconi , B., & Kruparova , O. 2014, , 289, 4633, 10.1007/s11207-014-0601-z

    2014 doi

  33. [41]

    P., et al

    Krupar , V., Maksimovic , M., Kontar , E. P., et al. 2018, , 857, 82, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab60f

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    C., et al

    Lacombe , C., Steinberg , J.-L., Harvey , C. C., et al. 1997, Annales Geophysicae, 15, 387, 10.1007/s00585-997-0387-5

    1997 doi

  35. [43]

    H., Wang , W., et al

    Li , S., Yan , Y. H., Wang , W., et al. 2016, , 33, e061, 10.1017/pasa.2016.51

    2016 doi

  36. [44]

    M., & Pitaevskii , L

    Lifshitz , E. M., & Pitaevskii , L. P. 1981, Physical kinetics (Course of theoretical physics, Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1981)

    1981

  37. [45]

    1979, , 73, 292

    Mangeney , A., & Veltri , P. 1979, , 73, 292

    1979

  38. [46]

    J., Kaiser , M

    Mann , G., Jansen , F., MacDowall , R. J., Kaiser , M. L., & Stone , R. G. 1999, , 348, 614

    1999

  39. [47]

    K., Ananthakrishnan , S., & Pramesh Rao , A

    Manoharan , P. K., Ananthakrishnan , S., & Pramesh Rao , A. 1987, in Sixth International Solar Wind Conference, ed. V. J. Pizzo , T. Holzer , & D. G. Sime , 55

    1987

  40. [48]

    1990, , 95, 11945, 10.1029/JA095iA08p11945

    Marsch , E., & Tu , C.-Y. 1990, , 95, 11945, 10.1029/JA095iA08p11945

    1990 doi

  41. [49]

    J., & Melrose , D

    McLean , D. J., & Melrose , D. B. 1985, Propagation of radio waves through the solar corona , ed. D. J. McLean & N. R. Labrum , 237--251

    1985

  42. [50]

    Melrose , D. B. 1980, Plasma astrohysics. Nonthermal processes in diffuse magnetized plasmas. (New York: Gordon and Breach, 1980)

    1980

  43. [51]

    Muschietti , L., & Dum , C. T. 1991, Physics of Fluids B, 3, 1968, 10.1063/1.859665

    1991 doi

  44. [52]

    P., & Oberoi , D

    Nindos , A., Kontar , E. P., & Oberoi , D. 2019, Advances in Space Research, 63, 1404, 10.1016/j.asr.2018.10.023

    2019 doi

  45. [53]

    Parker , E. N. 1960, , 132, 821, 10.1086/146985

    1960 doi

  46. [54]

    2012, Waves and Oscillations in Plasmas ( Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton ), 10.1201/b12702

    P \'e cseli , H. 2012, Waves and Oscillations in Plasmas ( Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton ), 10.1201/b12702

    2012 doi

  47. [55]

    2008, , 16, 1, 10.1007/s00159-008-0013-x

    Pick , M., & Vilmer , N. 2008, , 16, 1, 10.1007/s00159-008-0013-x

    2008 doi

  48. [56]

    Rao , C. R. 1973, Linear Statistical Inference and its Applications: Second Editon (John Wiley and Sons, New York), 10.2307/2529568

    1973 doi

  49. [57]

    H., & Kontar , E

    Ratcliffe , H., Bian , N. H., & Kontar , E. P. 2012, , 761, 176, 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/176

    2012 doi

  50. [58]

    Ratcliffe , H., & Kontar , E. P. 2014, , 562, A57, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322263

    2014 doi

  51. [59]

    Reid , H. A. S., & Kontar , E. P. 2018, , 614, A69, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732298

    2018 doi

  52. [60]

    J., Goetz , K., Fainberg , J., et al

    Reiner , M. J., Goetz , K., Fainberg , J., et al. 2009, , 259, 255, 10.1007/s11207-009-9404-z

    2009 doi

  53. [61]

    Riddle , A. C. 1972, Proceedings of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 2, 148, 10.1017/S1323358000013333

    1972 doi

  54. [62]

    1974, , 35, 153, 10.1007/BF00156964

    ---. 1974, , 35, 153, 10.1007/BF00156964

    1974 doi

  55. [63]

    S., Ricketson , L

    Rosin , M. S., Ricketson , L. F., Dimits , A. M., Caflisch , R. E., & Cohen , B. I. 2014, Journal of Computational Physics, 274, 140, 10.1016/j.jcp.2014.05.030

    2014 doi

  56. [64]

    2013, , 762, 60, 10.1088/0004-637X/762/1/60

    Saint-Hilaire , P., Vilmer , N., & Kerdraon , A. 2013, , 762, 60, 10.1088/0004-637X/762/1/60

    2013 doi

  57. [65]

    R., Cifre , J

    Schmidt , R. R., Cifre , J. G. H., & de la Torre , J. G. 2011, , 135, 084116, 10.1063/1.3626868

    2011 doi

  58. [66]

    Shaikh , D., & Zank , G. P. 2010, , 402, 362, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15881.x

    2010

  59. [67]

    N., Kontar , E

    Sharykin , I. N., Kontar , E. P., & Kuznetsov , A. A. 2018, , 293, 115, 10.1007/s11207-018-1333-2

    2018 doi

  60. [68]

    Shvets , V. F. 1979, Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, 39, 456, 10.1007/BF01014924

    1979 doi

  61. [69]

    F., Wild , J

    Smerd , S. F., Wild , J. P., & Sheridan , K. V. 1962, Australian Journal of Physics, 15, 180, 10.1071/PH620180

    1962 doi

  62. [70]

    L., Aubier-Giraud , M., Leblanc , Y., & Boischot , A

    Steinberg , J. L., Aubier-Giraud , M., Leblanc , Y., & Boischot , A. 1971, , 10, 362

    1971

  63. [71]

    L., Hoang , S., & Dulk , G

    Steinberg , J. L., Hoang , S., & Dulk , G. A. 1985, , 150, 205

    1985

  64. [72]

    Stewart , R. T. 1972, Proceedings of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 2, 100, 10.1017/S1323358000013059

    1972 doi

  65. [73]

    Suzuki , S., & Dulk , G. A. 1985, in Solar Radiophysics: Studies of Emission from the Sun at Metre Wavelengths, ed. D. J. McLean & N. R. Labrum (Cambridge University Press), 289--332

    1985

  66. [74]

    Tatarskii , V. I. 1961, Wave Propagation in Turbulent Medium (McGraw-Hill)

    1961

  67. [75]

    Thejappa , G., & MacDowall , R. J. 2008, , 676, 1338, 10.1086/528835

    2008 doi

  68. [76]

    J., & Kaiser , M

    Thejappa , G., MacDowall , R. J., & Kaiser , M. L. 2007, , 671, 894, 10.1086/522664

    2007 doi

  69. [77]

    Thompson , W. T. 2006, , 449, 791, 10.1051/0004-6361:20054262

    2006 doi

  70. [78]

    N., & ter Haar , D

    Tsytovich , V. N., & ter Haar , D. 1995, Lectures on Non-linear Plasma Kinetics (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York)

    1995

  71. [79]

    Wild , J. P. 1950, Australian Journal of Scientific Research A Physical Sciences, 3, 541, 10.1071/PH500541

    1950 doi

  72. [80]

    P., Sheridan , K

    Wild , J. P., Sheridan , K. V., & Trent , G. H. 1959, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 9, URSI Symp. 1: Paris Symposium on Radio Astronomy, ed. R. N. Bracewell , 176

    1959

  73. [81]

    2001, , 97, 9, 10.1023/A:1011845221808

    Wohlmuth , R., Plettemeier , D., Edenhofer , P., et al. 2001, , 97, 9, 10.1023/A:1011845221808

    2001 doi

  74. [82]

    2009, Earth Moon and Planets, 104, 97, 10.1007/s11038-008-9254-y

    Yan , Y., Zhang , J., Wang , W., et al. 2009, Earth Moon and Planets, 104, 97, 10.1007/s11038-008-9254-y

    2009 doi

  75. [83]

    P., Jetha , N., Hu , Q., & Hunana , P

    Zank , G. P., Jetha , N., Hu , Q., & Hunana , P. 2012, , 756, 21, 10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/21

    2012 doi

  76. [84]

    Zheleznyakov , V. V., ed. 1996, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 204, Radiation in Astrophysical Plasmas , 10.1007/978-94-009-0201-5

    1996 doi

  77. [85]

    V., & Zaitsev , V

    Zheleznyakov , V. V., & Zaitsev , V. V. 1970, , 14, 250

    1970

  78. [86]

    C.-L., Sharykin , I., & Struminsky , A

    Zimovets , I., Vilmer , N., Chian , A. C.-L., Sharykin , I., & Struminsky , A. 2012, , 547, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219454

    2012 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.